workflow_start_workflow_by_name

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains idempotency strategies and parameter roles but does not explicitly state that this tool creates a new workflow execution (a mutation) or discuss side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a docstring with a clear purpose sentence followed by an Args section. It is efficient, with each parameter receiving a single line. No redundant or unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all parameters and the main action. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other workflow tools (e.g., workflow_create_workflow_definition). Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the absence of usage context reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds substantial meaning. It explains each parameter: workflow_name as the definition name, correlation_id for uniqueness, priority with ordering, idempotency_key and idempotency_strategy with three strategies, and data as a dictionary of arguments. This goes far beyond the schema's type/default information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Starts a new execution of a conductor workflow by its name', providing a specific verb ('starts') and resource ('workflow execution'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read, pause, or terminate workflows, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.